Frege's Puzzle

Richard

The Egyptian origins theory may not be literally true, but there are suspicious parallels with the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt, Jesus' return from 'voluntary' exile in Egypt, and the archetypes of Egyptian mythology in the collective unconscious, but I am not ready to foist these ideas onto an unreceptive objectively-oriented world.
Debra said:
.....But I share Yygdrasilian's interest in a "meaningfully coherent design" with old roots, older than the specifically Christian symbols on the cards.
Much of the "Christian" imagery derives from older traditions, such as the Last Judgment, which apparently was borrowed froim Zoroastrianism.
 

Teheuti

Debra - Of course, there's a history of myth, just like there's a history of ideas. There's nothing wrong with theories, IMHO, but the field of historical research has standards for evaluating the likelihood of such theories. Just as you don't see the evidence for a Kabbalistic connection, tarot historians don't see the evidence for an Egyptian or pre-15th century source for the Trumps.

I, too, find it interesting that the playing card deck seems to come from Mamluk Egypt - but there is no hint of a set of Trumps. Furthermore, those cards are related to an earlier Persian source rather than one from ancient Egypt. The Egyptian possibility led me to an admittedly dilletante, though extended, study of ancient Egypt and two trips there to see if I could find even a hint of a source in Egyptian iconography—nope. But, well-worth it for its own sake. If you know of anything different, please let me know!
 

Teheuti

The Egyptian origins theory may not be literally true, but there are suspicious parallels with the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt, Jesus' return from 'voluntary' exile in Egypt, and the archetypes of Egyptian mythology in the collective unconscious, but I am not ready to foist these ideas onto an unreceptive objectively-oriented world.Much of the "Christian" imagery derives from older traditions, such as the Last Judgment, which apparently was borrowed froim Zoroastrianism.
I'm totally with you about the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Not all historians would be because many have no interest in or sympathy for Jungian ideas. But, you are mixing up disciplines here. What you are describing is not an historical issue. The tools of history don't work within a Jungian perspective - which is why Jung developed other tools and methodologies for working with the Unconscious and the Psyche. Nothing in the article you pointed to suggests any differently.

On my blog I've collected every reference I could find by Jung to Tarot. There's some interesting stuff there.

Personally, I think Tarot demonstrates the idea of archetypes quite well and corresponds very closely with Campbell's Hero's Journey, as I discuss in my book 21 Ways to Read a Tarot Card.

The function and the supporting rules of history are quite different.

Added: Just read Normandi Ellis' wonderful article on "What Egypt Still Has to Teach Us" that is referred to several times in the article linked to by LRichard. I co-led a trip to Egypt with Normandy and can confirm that her insights into the Mundus Imaginalis of Egypt are profound. It was an honor to be there with her. It's also great that she can walk up to a wall full of hieroglyphs and read what they say. Sometimes both the scholar and the poet can be at work in one person, but it helps to know when one is functioning versus the other when dealing with history. The difference is not usually relevant when operating as a poet. http://www.obsidianmagazine.com/NormandiEllis/index.html
 

foolish

The gap between the occultist and the serious historian is unbridgeable, because anyone committed to preserving an esoteric system of hidden knowledge will have avoided the explicit documentation of any such tradition into which one had been initiated. Thus, the documentary evidence upon which the historian relies would, in theory, always remain elusive.
This simple statement - like so many other ideas and theories - has been lambasted in the history section as hogwash. But, other than the idea of whether this statement is reasonable or not (which I will get to shortly), there seems to be another conversation going on here. And that has to do with the tendency of some members of the history section to lash out - often in an abusive tone - against those who present ideas which don't match up with their own.

But wait, one might say. As the guardians of knowledge, don't we have the right to protect people from the harms of misinformation by determining what is real and what remains fantasy? The problem with this is that, in the world of tarot history, so much remains in the realm of uncertainty. And, ironically, it is within this sphere of uncertainty that most people find interesting topics for discussion.

You can't prove one way or the other that God exists, but the idea has captured the lives of just about everyone on the planet, from the begining of mankind. It's (in one sense) a way of explaining ourselves and the world around us. In a similar fashion, these esoteric or alternative theories of the tarot are simply contexts within which to explain or visualize the cards.

Esoteric explanations of the tarot are not demanding proof simply because they can’t be disproven (ala the Santa Claus argument). They are simply suggesting alternative meanings to (Tarot) images, based on other associations of these images.

The evidence for such theories is based mainly upon similarities or associations with other forms of art which use the same images. But it's in the interpretation of these images that the cards develop their meaning. And the problem with historical "facts" is that it's often difficult to determine just how accurate they are. For example, U.S. history is based upon facts which are handed down to us through text books, stories, pictures, etc. But do you think that the history of this country would appear differently if these “facts” were presented by Native Americans instead of the White Man?

In the same sense, tarot history may be “told” differently according to the story tellers, and the context in which the images on the cards are being deciphered.

My personal feeling is that a forum should be open to discussions about a variety of topics. Some will offer reasonable evidence and others will not. Those who choose to participate in those discussions should be free to do so without harassment from others who believe differently. Those who disagree should feel free to move on, and they have the same right to post information which is of interest to them.

The caption under the History Section states: “research, studies and THEORIES on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards.” By my online dictionary definition, a theory is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” If that’s the case, then, since many of the theories presented in this history section fit that definition, demands for “proof” are moot points, and shouldn't prevent these theories from being included or open to discussion.

If these ideas are not interesting to some members, I would suggest sticking to other threads. But if it's decided that these ideas are really not appropriate for the history section, then I would suggest correcting the subtitle to exclude "theories," as this could be very misleading to new AT members, as it was to myself.

Here's one solution: Maybe the 99% of the members who offer posts which fall outside of the strict requirements of the few history buffs should rise up and protest the abusive tactics from the 1% of those interested in defending a limited range of historical knowledge. These history buffs can then either start their own forum, demanding a certain level of evidence in order to be included, or they can back off and refrain from taking personal or confrontive pot-shots at other members and just do what they do best - which is to offer information, when appropriate (and in a professional way), from their vast weath of knowledge and research.
 

Richard

As Teheuti suggests, standard historical methodology is to be distinguished from other approaches, which may have some validity but are not properly within the purview of Historical Research.
 

Debra

There was discussion of this on this short thread: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=151973

Maybe the problem is an artifact of the way the History and Iconography forum is structured.

Here's how the forum is labeled: Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards.

Personally I think this isn't people taking a class for a grade. If someone says something that seems wrong or ridiculous, it's sensible to point that out and show why. Or point to a resource that shows the problem. Or not, if it seems like too much trouble. :laugh:

We can learn from each other, one thing or another. For example, although I don't always learn something about tarot, I learn something about collegial interactions (and have come to regret most discussions where I tried to establish conclusively that I was right and the other was wrong).

There's also the "ignore" button. :laugh:
 

Teheuti

You can't prove one way or the other that God exists, but the idea has captured the lives of just about everyone on the planet, from the begining of mankind. It's (in one sense) a way of explaining ourselves and the world around us.
Yes, and the question of the existence of God is a question that can NOT be explored via historical research.

the problem with historical "facts" is that it's often difficult to determine just how accurate they are. For example, U.S. history is based upon facts which are handed down to us through text books, stories, pictures, etc. But do you think that the history of this country would appear differently if these “facts” were presented by Native Americans instead of the White Man?
You are mistaking facts for attitudes toward, reporting of, and opinions about those facts. There's a big difference between primary sources and secondary sources. The examples you give above are all secondary sources and therefore liable to distortion. Also, it is true that facts gathered by white colonialists will probably be missing facts known to native peoples. Such issues are always being addressed and corrected as they are discovered. Facts that are "handed down" often get distorted, which is why historians go back over the records to re-evaluate what is known.

You aren't getting that historians start FIRST and foremost with primary resources! The stories written about those facts are often written with agendas in mind—no question about it. That is why historians keep refining their investigative skills and the criterion for determining and evaluating evidence. It is also why peer review (critique) is always necessary for uncovering a person's conscious or unconscious prejudices and slants.

A primary piece of evidence might be, for example, an original dated bill of sale for a deck of Triumphs (e.g., 1440 for a deck produced in Florence). Regarding images - it's not just about 'deciphering' them. Rather, one gathers what is known about closely similar images that appear at the same location and time, and then evaluates the relevancy and period perspective based on a number of factors.

My personal feeling is that a forum should be open to discussions about a variety of topics.
Each section of the tarotforum has its own 'rules.' There is a section for discussing Books & Media where it is not all right to ask for personal tarot readings. I regularly get topics moved because I put them in the wrong section - and the moderators are right to do so!

Historians came to this forum when it opened and asked for an area in which history could be discussed according to serious historial protocols—like the right to ask for evidence before seriously considering a theory. Also, historical theories have their own protocols. Essentially, one begins with facts (primary source evidence) and then devises a theory that goes with the facts and then checks that theory against other facts. Criticism by other historians is essential to the process. That's how it's done in Historical Research.

I agree completely that all the people with ideas and theories that are not based on primary source material should have a place to present and talk about their ideas. You could ask the forum owner to institute a new section called whatever - perhaps "Theories, Ideas & Speculations." One of the rules of that section can be that no primary source evidence is necessary.

These history buffs can then either start their own forum, demanding a certain level of evidence in order to be included, or they can back off and refrain from taking personal or confrontive pot-shots at other members and just do what they do best - which is to offer information, when appropriate (and in a professional way), from their vast weath of knowledge and research.

That's exactly what the "history buffs" did when they came here (largely from tarot-l, which was not divided into special interest sections). Historians were given an area in which it was agreed that historical fact would serve as the basis of the inquiry and along with it a right to ask for evidence that supports such theories. If you read through the "Notes" at the beginning of the Historical Research section, you'll find plenty of material that indicates just what standards are considered significant and what books epitomize the approach taken here.
 

Debra

The actual history threads show a lot of diversity in approach, and the "recommended readings" include a series of interviews not about tarot history or confined to people with expertise in tarot history. http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=80781

Mary, do I remember seeing somewhere that you mention using astrology in your biographies of various figures in tarot history?

Yes. Here it is:

Having written four biographies (in one book), I agree about how important this [the age of an historical figure] is. I work a lot with timelines and I always keep track of people's ages - although, since I used astrology as a biographical tool (the four I wrote about all used astrology & tarot), I was also looking at the major life crisis points. I also found it fascinating to see what events overlapped and therefore were influencing a person's perspective at that time. ...

How does the use of astrology for biography fit in with the standards proposed for this forum?
 

Teheuti

Mary, do I remember seeing somewhere that you mention using astrology in your biographies of various figures in tarot history?

How does this fit in with the standards proposed for this forum?
The book was meant to be a popular biography, and it became a bit more scholarly by accident - I just couldn't help myself after spending several months in England and Ireland researching the book full time. But, I am not a historian by formal training and the book was written many years ago.

My background is in English Literature with an emphasis on 19th century British lit. (I taught in a college for many years.) I've learned a lot about an historical approach via tarot forums and my own reading in the subject, and so I've been learning as I go. But, I'm also a practicing ??? - many things, including GD initiate.

With the idea of it being a popular biography for people with an interest in our magical roots, I allowed for moments of speculation, and I chose, at times, to use the same methods that GD members used (the book itself is set within a magical invocation and release). However, I was very careful to note when information came from a source and exactly what that source was. Likewise, I was clear to indicate when anything was supposition or speculation on my part. I didn't want there to be any confusion about that.

My astrological approach was primarily based on the astrology with which they would have been familiar (I was first trained in London by elderly astrologers who were still using an older approach), although I have to admit that I slipped in a bit more psychological stuff than the people I was writing about would have). Essentially, I wanted to know what they would have been most aware of when looking at their own charts. Luckily, I had some examples of theirs to work from.
 

Teheuti

Debra, I should explain that I used to take your point of view when I was on tarot-l many long years ago. There were no separate sections and so when a theory of tarot origin was presented the historians would do pretty much what we do here and demand evidence, and the metaphysicians or those simply with an "idea" would call foul - like happens here, but more so. I advocated respect for ideas that logically seemed to have some merit even if we did not yet have any evidence. But I stayed and listened and argued and over time I learned more about historical methodology and its merits, and about the disservice that is done to the field when all ideas are held as equally viable. In that case there wouldn't even be a field called "history." This doesn't mean that tarot was originally 'just a card game.' But, saying it was something else doesn't make it so.

After Aeclectic's tarotforum opened, the historians started drifting over here and requested an area where historical standards and protocols could be deemed the basis for discourse—to allow for the serious discussion of historical evidence. As the right to hold to these standards was repeatedly questioned, an altogether separate site came into being: "The Tarot History Forum". Many of the same people drop in on both. The one here has more latitude and therefore regularly has discussions like the one we are having.

Newcomers can get a taste of what tarot history is all about. Anyone with a theory can present it, but their theory will get critiqued, and they'll be asked for evidence to support it. Theories that can't be shown to have any historical ground are pretty much dismissed because there is no research to be examined and therefore it falls outside of this category. A supposedly logical argument does not constitute historical research, evidence or proof. Acceptance of historical theories are not based on popularity contests. Ideas without a basis in historical evidence are fine, but don't belong here. Being willing to stay and do research (to the best of one's ability) can lead to learning a tremendous amount about history.

Spurred by a comment from the 15th century Italian author, Aretino, that "everything was used for fortune-telling," I was intrigued that contemporary historians insisted that the real case was that "everything except tarot cards were used for fortune-telling." So, I've been gathering evidence on tarot being more than simply a game. First, I broadened the concept to playing cards in order not to overlook something significant and then I started listing any evidence I came across. Ross Caldwell and Huck (among many others) have been great at finding stuff. Here's two lists:

http://marygreer.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/origins-of-divination-with-playing-cards/
http://marygreer.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/tarot-and-playing-cards-in-witchcraft/

A theory is something that should start to emerge after examining this kind of data.